Daily review 02/08/2021

56 comments on “Daily review 02/08/2021 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robert Guyton 1

   2 August 2021 at 6:25 pm

   Why Jacinda Ardern sat under a woven mat.

   Breath-taking courage.

   "Last night’s actions are unheard of by a world leader. Her compassion and humility was beautiful to watch…"

   https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/02-08-2021/dawn-raids-ceremony-explained-why-jacinda-ardern-sat-under-a-woven-mat/
   • mac1 1.1

     2 August 2021 at 6:35 pm

     Agreed. Well said, Robert. Very moving and explanatory article.
   • gsays 1.2

     2 August 2021 at 6:42 pm

     Thanks Robert.

     What Mac said.

     Reading that has mellowed the rant that was forming while I had a shower.
2. pat 2

   2 August 2021 at 6:48 pm

   There is no doubt the PM does symbolism extremely well….there is value in that.
3. vto 3

   2 August 2021 at 7:34 pm

   a safe place for women

   excludes men

   pfft

   ..

   zero
4. vto 4

   2 August 2021 at 7:36 pm

   offensive in the extreme
   • The Al1en 4.1

     2 August 2021 at 7:44 pm

     I don't get how it's "offensive in the extreme". It is what it is.

     I entered the topic, noted it was for women only, and left without reading any of it.

     If it's not meant for men to comment on, it's not for men to comment on. View it as a sort of a no tax without representation thing and go read and participate somewhere else.
     • McFlock 4.1.1

       2 August 2021 at 8:10 pm

       I had a read of the first one, as allowed in the post. Haven't kept an eye on the latest one. First one seemed to have a bit of a pile-on in the comments.

       Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a vague recollection of occasional other posts where comments were restricted to particular groups – vague inkling of a leftie-only post? I think that might have been here?

       Anyway, it's a reasonable way to make sure others can get a word in edge-wise.
       • The Al1en 4.1.1.1

         2 August 2021 at 8:16 pm

         I guess I can understand feminists wanting a man free zone, though I take your point it's not really conducive to general deliberation and debate, but big boy trousers and all that.
         It doesn't bother me to be maximus offendinatum.
       • weka 4.1.1.2

         3 August 2021 at 12:44 am

         Lefties on The Standard, dedicated posts during the last election when we still had lots of righties around and debate was a bit aggro. They were fun discussions
     • vto 4.1.2

       2 August 2021 at 8:14 pm

       no problem with their own sandpit but the way it has been constructed is offensive .. see other post .. crude and rude
       • The Al1en 4.1.2.1

         2 August 2021 at 8:18 pm

         Sweet pie or dog’s dinner – You either swallow it down or let it chew you up. Your call, obviously.
         • vto 4.1.2.1.1

           2 August 2021 at 8:21 pm

           neither is applicable
           • The Al1en 4.1.2.1.1.1

             2 August 2021 at 8:23 pm

             Then best order in a bucket of Gaviscon 'cause if shits going down it's probably gonna burn.
   • Shanreagh 4.2

     3 August 2021 at 9:01 am

     Why?

     Is it offensive in the extreme? I can think of many more offensive things, ranging from the homelessness crisis, to the potential for ‘uncut ‘males to expose themselves in formerly women’s and children’s changing rooms.
     • vto 4.2.1

       3 August 2021 at 10:15 am

       think white breads who drive past their local brown breads school because 'safe'
       • Shanreagh 4.2.1.1

         3 August 2021 at 11:00 am

         ??????

         So nothing on the actual issue. Are you pleased with the advice from SUFW re changes that Govt may be making to the bill? Will this solve the issues/snags/concerns seen by many women about the bill as it stands? What do you think?

         https://thestandard.org.nz/womens-space/
         Weka’s post 11.1

         Or are we going to hark back to the 70s where the next step is for someone to say that women who are concerned have 'no sense of humour'?
         • Anker 4.2.1.1.1

           3 August 2021 at 11:30 am

           100% Shanreagh. Or as a fellow commenters did to me a couple of days back, ie. suggested I sounded "unhinged" and "obsessive"

           I asked him if he thought this was possibly gaslighting i.e trying to discredit someone by suggesting they were "unhinged" (crazy). I don't think he has replied as of yet. Maybe someone will suggest valium for me. Just like the 70's.
           • Shanreagh 4.2.1.1.1.1

             3 August 2021 at 12:44 pm

             Asserting that women have something wrong with them when speaking of or claiming rights has a long long history. Numbers of women were classed as hysterical, in mental health terms, way way back. it was particularly used around the suffragette era but before that for women who wouldn't or coukdn't take their (male) assigned place in society.

             yes it was a shocking example and I am surprised it was/has not been picked up as an ad hominem attack on you given it's long and well-known use to denigrate the arguments of women. Perhaps there is still time?
             • weka …

               3 August 2021 at 1:02 pm

               just had a look at the comments. Tbf to Andre, he would say that to men too. It's his go to on things he feels strongly about. Imo it's a rhetorical device use to undermine people when someone thinks the ideas need to be suppressed (eg anti-vaxxers) – make out there is something wrong with the person, and Andre does have a pretty tongue in that respect.

               Thing about TS is there is a degree to which we have to be thick skinned. We can't moderate every rudeness or ad hom. If it becomes a pattern, or is done in a major way (eg if someone called a woman unhinged for talking about sex based rights under a post about things that impact on women, I'd probably pull them up on it) then it's more likely to get moderated.

               Gaslighting imo would be something more sustained, either lots of comments like that targeting one person, or a detailed comment attacking someone.

               But thanks for raising this. I will keep an eye out to see if there is a pattern emerging of responses to GCF and sex based rights comments. You can always draw my attention to comments too (drop a link in front of me somewhere and ask me to take a look).
               • Anker …

                 3 August 2021 at 3:16 pm

                 thanks Weka and Shanreagh. It was a one off from Andre. I dealt with it myself by asking did he think it was possible it was gaslighting (I myself am not sure, but think you are right Weka, it needs to be sustained). I asked him not to refer to my mental health again. I don't know if he has seen it.

                 I am pretty resicillient really. I only mentioned in this forum, because Shanreagh said the thing from the 70's like "can't you women take a joke".

                 But thanks…….
         • weka 4.2.1.1.2

           3 August 2021 at 11:50 am

           It's an old argument that we used to hash out here around what sexism is. Vto is saying that having women's space for safety reasons is bigotry against men. In vto's view, sexism is equal sided, just as much against men as women. Saying that women need women's space to be safe from men is offensive to men in the same way that some Pākehā might avoid living in suburbs with lots of Māori or Pasifica people to keep themselves safe. I think that's the gist of it (am mostly guessing, because he didn't actually say).

           He doesn't like the framing of the women's posts. Neither of the women's space posts use the word safety, it does get used in comments. Men are free to talk about whatever they want elsewhere on TS, so vto can have at it, but I would guess he's not explaining what he means because it will induce an argument.
           • vto 4.2.1.1.2.1

             3 August 2021 at 12:06 pm

             you are welcome to your own sandpit – its got nothing to do with that

             but suggesting people are unsafe solely because they are male is offensive
             • weka …

               3 August 2021 at 12:11 pm

               no-one said that vto.
               • vto …

                 3 August 2021 at 12:36 pm

                 que? i certainly read that yesterday eve, though now looking back the reference to 'men' and 'safe' is no longer there. although I do see others who reference the word 'safe' in the comments, implying its previous existence…… .

                 you haven't deleted it have you weka?
                 • weka …

                   3 August 2021 at 12:44 pm

                   nope. Link or it didn't happen.
                   • vto …

                     3 August 2021 at 4:10 pm

                     well I can't link now as it has disappeared. i dont make things up weka
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2021 at 6:14 pm

                     Looks like you misremembered then.

                     I've looked in Trash and the only mention of safe in a comment there is a duplicate of a comment still in the front end.

                     The Women's Space post last edit was on Sunday, a minute within publishing and nothing about safety and men.

                     My suggestion is next time you do two things: link as you go, and explain what you mean as you go. Otherwise it looks like you are making things up.
                   • Incognito []

                     3 August 2021 at 6:38 pm

                     I hazard a guess that vto is thinking of this:

                     … a women’s safe space excludes men …

                     Our memories can play havoc with us.
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2021 at 8:57 pm

                     . https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-02-08-2021/#comment-1806434

                     Yes, but vto said "but suggesting people are unsafe solely because they are male is offensive"

                     Which isn't what Molly (or anyone) said.
                   • vto …

                     4 August 2021 at 6:41 pm

                     acknowledged weka, I do try to play nice with my buttons that are easily pressed, and which most around here are tediously familiar with. They are genuine buttons to me tho – I see so very many men subjugated, oppressed, abused, kicked and punched, and left in the dirt by society, it just tears at me …

                     incognito found the line though, thanks

                     onwards, and best (sincerely) with what you do in the womens space
                   • weka []

                     4 August 2021 at 8:41 pm

                     thanks vto. I understand about the buttons and appreciate your honesty here.

                     I see so very many men subjugated, oppressed, abused, kicked and punched, and left in the dirt by society, it just tears at me

                     This I understand too. Where we differ I think is that I see the shit that men have to deal with in this regard as being primarily caused by a society that puts men in a whole bunch of boxes that cause them harm. The system treats men badly. We may also differ on what the solutions are.
             • Shanreagh …

               3 August 2021 at 12:37 pm

               So you are not going to reply VTO? Substantively? On the issues raised in the proposed amendments to the legislation?

               It would be great if you could frame the concerns of women as you see them (following the good advice in the How to debate thread)

               In the meantime what do you think of the possible amendments foreshadowed by SUFW that I linked to. How do you think that will meet any concerns?
               • vto …

                 3 August 2021 at 4:12 pm

                 Shanreagh I wasn't commenting on those issues. You would find however that I am very much on your 'side' on these types of issues. It is only the peripheral issues, such as I did comment on, that get my goat.

                 Happy to exchange views another time
5. KSaysHi 5

   2 August 2021 at 8:39 pm

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018806504/disabled-people-in-relationships-paying-for-the-price-of-love

   Oh good. Welfare was meant to support disabled, not leave them guilt ridden or alone for life.

   Checkpoint also approached Social Development and Disability Issues Minister Carmel Sepuloni for comment.

   In a statement she said a range of recommendations had been made regarding income support for disabled people.

   She said work is underway looking at the definition of relationships for disabled and non-disabled beneficiaries.

   More advice will be coming as part of the welfare overhaul programme later in 2021.
6. weka 6

   3 August 2021 at 12:59 am

   A fair amount of nonsense on both sides after Laurel Hubbard’s loss at the Olympics. This was a good explanation of the advantage issue,

   https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/1422167625640054784?s=21

   https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/1422169346357481473?s=21
   • McFlock 6.1

     3 August 2021 at 1:31 pm

     So when she wins in a competition,there's a tweet about how transwomen have an amazing advantage over other women. When she doesn't win, now there is a tweet and vid about how she has an outrageous advantage but her "baseline" is weak.

     Seems like whether she wins or loses, she can't win.
     • weka 6.1.1

       3 August 2021 at 1:37 pm

       obviously for the people that think males shouldn't be in women's sports, it's wrong no matter who wins.

       You linked to a comment where the debate following was an ad hom.

       I'm here for exploring the issues. If people don't want to talk about them, that's fine.
       • McFlock 6.1.1.1

         3 August 2021 at 2:02 pm

         obviously for the people that think males shouldn't be in women's sports, it's wrong no matter who wins.

         On that, we agree.
     • Molly 6.1.2

       3 August 2021 at 2:50 pm

       It might be informative for you to actually look and the link first, before you make the prophesied rebuttal. (Made before the event was held BTW).

       Ross Tucker mentions that eight years ago he too was an advocate for the inclusion of transwomen in the women's category in sport. He then went on to be part of a team that investigated the impacts and consequences of a number of conflicts that arise from the three basic principles of sport: well-being, fairness and inclusion.

       It's about 15 minutes long. If you are going to continue to engage, at least have the courtesy to inform yourself so you can dismiss the argument, rather than those making it.

       https://t.co/UXUjeXbAh5?amp=1
       • McFlock 6.1.2.1

         3 August 2021 at 3:01 pm

         Might surprise you to learn that I did look at the link.

         "Someone found a twitterer who agrees with them" is not particularly persuasive, because there might be fifty people just as qualified (or even moreso) who disagree with that twitterer.

         It just reinforces the poster's conviction.
         • Molly 6.1.2.1.1

           3 August 2021 at 3:07 pm

           The video link of someone who has worked on panels looking to improve trans inclusion into sports is not only"some twitterer". He outlines how they approached this and why they drew the conclusions they did.

           So, once again, the messenger…
           • McFlock 6.1.2.1.1.1

             3 August 2021 at 3:19 pm

             Nope, the medium.

             Every discipline has experts with different opinions. Some are generally around a broad consensus. Some are fringe, pushing opinions which the facts don't support or are outright contrary to reality.

             Twitter, like many social media sites, tends towards promoting opinions to which one naturally agrees. My twitter feed, for example, has been almost empty of anything other than positive mentions of Hubbard. Other people's has likely been the opposite.

             So I look for some tweets about Hubbard, but even before I apply my own filters to what I on-share, twitter has already tended to provide me with content that already fits my opinion.

             Is this guy's opinion typical of the experts who make up the rest of the panels he's been on? Or is he an outlier? I don't know. How do you know? How does Weka?

             As research tools go, Twitter simply serves to reinforce pre-existing opinions.
             • Molly …

               3 August 2021 at 3:31 pm

               Jesus, McFlock,

               You haven't independently looked him up past that tweet? That's the first thing I do when someone links. Try it. I usually follow up by trying to find original papers or articles. I wouldn't post or repost links that I didn't think to have some relevance or credibility. That's why I don't post links to Auntie Betty's Instagram.

               So, not the messenger, now the medium… and still not the message.
               • McFlock …

                 3 August 2021 at 4:09 pm

                 My comment wasn't about him.

                 My comment was about seeking out links that allegedly support one's position, then seeking out other links when the first ones fall down.

                 ohmahgerd Laurel crushes all her opponents because "male" is now it doesn't matter whether she wins or not because she lost. Contradictory positions each with their own curated twitter expert in support. Should I go looking for Twitterers who agree with me and post that?

                 Twitter schmitter. It's just the latest iteration of the gish gallop – an easy link that might or might not be a thorough and fair reflection of reality, but when that one's dealt with there are a dozen others.
                 • Molly …

                   3 August 2021 at 4:41 pm

                   Doubling down, a la Collins.

                   The link is not about Hubbard herself. In fact, your comment makes lie to your claim to have looked at it (unless by looking you meant reading the tweet, not actually watching the video). In which case, disingenuous.

                   We can sit together and moan about the level of fatuous comment on Twitter and social media. But the question here is are you approaching this discussion in good faith?

                   Respect for open dialogue and basic intellectual curiosity should have motivated you to click the link after searching credentials. Then a discussion on content could take place seeking resolution.

                   You spend more time posting while uninformed of the actual (not ascribed) concern arguments, than it would take to discuss them.

                   At this stage, is there any way anyone could raise concerns with you and have them respectfully discussed?
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2021 at 5:53 pm

                     Well, after the one six weeks ago where I had to look at the partial result sheet from a single event, find a repository of weightlifting results (which I never knew existed), identify the specific event from which those results had been lifted, and then find they were contrary to the rest of Hubbard's record (much closer when in her actual weight range, e.g. the Olympics) which strongly indicated that the twittered snapshot had been cherry-picked… this time I didn't feel like putting in that level of work to look at a tweet that was shared because someone happened to agree with it. I read it, watched it, ignored the appeals to authority, and remained unimpressed. You want me to do a lit review? Nope.

                     I suppose providing a link to something in text that demonstrates the commenter actually did enough to get a feel of the general direction of wider discussion within the specific research community might work. Something other than posting a tweet that was shared with one because the algorithm knew one already agreed with it.

                     You're still missing the point that a sample bias in an evidence review can lead to as many problems as it does in data. And social media, as a source, builds links around a sample bias.
                   • Molly …

                     3 August 2021 at 7:59 pm

                     You are determined to not discuss the actual subject.

                     How convenient that a Phd in Sports Science can be dismissed because he uses Twitter.

                     Lit review? No thanks. I have grave concerns about your reading ability and comprehension as it is. Let's leave the possibility I am wrong on the table.
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2021 at 8:47 pm

                     "You are determined to not discuss the actual subject."

                     Indeed.

                     There's nothing wrong with twitter as a source so long as one understands how to use twitter as a source. I don't see it too different from TS, echo chamber that it is at times. Someone says something, we still have to assess the usefulness and veracity of it. It's not that hard, so I don't really know what McFlock is on about. And tbh, not going to put much effort in to understanding because while talking about twitter and algorithms and critical thinking would be an interesting convo at another time, here it just feels like a derail.

                     If the tweeps expert in their field on twitter aren't good enough sources, then there's probably not much to be done 😉

                     People can talk about what they want (there's no obligation for McFlock to talk about the issues raised), my links were to discuss the fairness or otherwise of males competing in women's sport so when someone responds to that I'll probably be interested again.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2021 at 9:17 pm

                     Because individual doctors can never be wrong, even in their speciality?

                     On occasion. people have posted articles (even peer reviewed articles) or hard data (even partial data, e.g. six weeks ago). Findings of courts and various bodies. That sort of thing I can look at with some hope of learning something.

                     But if you don't get that most social media is designed around handing you stuff and connections that reinforce your beliefs, then you're in the queue for a tinfoil hat. Because sooner or later a preconception that was mildly held and slightly incorrect will be watered, filtered and cultivated into some prize-winning nuts.
                   • weka …

                     3 August 2021 at 9:27 pm

                     I understand how social media works, and I think it's possible to take that into account via critical thinking.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 August 2021 at 9:36 pm

                     Scammers love people who think they know how the trick is done. It makes things easier.
   • Incognito 6.2

     3 August 2021 at 6:49 pm

     I don’t get this. Laurel Hubbard qualified for the Olympics and those standards are understandably high as Eliza McCartney can attest, for example, who won Bronze only 5 years ago, but failed to meet the threshold this time.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/women-in-sport/300337293/tokyo-olympics-agony-tears-for-eliza-mccartney-olivia-mctaggart-as-games-bid-misfires

     In other words, why would Hubbard’s “base level” be too low!?
     • Nic the NZer 6.2.1

       3 August 2021 at 7:12 pm

       Its a weird analogy. Base is the athletes performance on the day. Advantage is a basically constant performance boost (usually zero).
       • Molly 6.2.1.1

         4 August 2021 at 8:54 am

         You have ascribed meanings to both 'base' and 'advantage', that are not what was described in the link. So I'm guessing you haven't really looked before commenting. Makes your blitheness a dismissal of commenting, rather than content. Becoming a bit of a habit on TS it seems.
7. Anker 7

   3 August 2021 at 10:01 am

   • Thanks Weka. As I said on another post that Laurel, didn’t get very far competing in the men’s category, but made it to the Olympics in the women’s.

   I this Laurel is likely to need a great deal of support after the loss which I hope she gets

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS